[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Teslas Ball Lightning

Original poster: "Mike" <induction@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Dave, Brett, Matt, List,
I would like to weigh in on this one, as I have of course been watching it for some time.
Let me begin by saying, while other main stream scientists might look at the work of the people on this list, that being to constantly improve Tesla Coils in leading edge efforts at times, as not mainline or revelant and therefore as pseudo science, as they view it, in order of importance compared to their selected fields, would be out of line.
This is of course wrong, I view any Tesla Coil work, from honing better DRSSTC to duplicating original Tesla designs to better understand the historical aspects, as science.
Again, to other people of a scientific nature, sometimes how relevant to their own work is will add or remove value on what they call science.That may be some of what I see here in the opinions.
At least one and likely more, view what they call science as standing on a square platform and anybody that dares to peer over the edge is a heretic, even if it is just to wonder what is there beyond current knowledge. It does no harm to wonder, to think "what if". That is what science is all about, extending the current range, pushing the envelope.
Yes, in the end you will need much proof and it had certainly better be able to be reproduceable.
But many people even reporting sighting regarding Ball Lightning or it's related effects are in effect, by implication that this is just another "fringe" or "weird", area or may be driven to the background by the overly judgmental of those standing on this square of "pure science".
Those of such a nature are in effect, trying to exact a pressure upon those either working in the B/L fields or are trying to drive back the reports from witnesses. I did take note that while other students interested in this field came under some critical view, as soon as the moderator indicated he had been looking at the subject some 3 years and had thoughts, how quickly the opinions softened.
As Dave said, these sightings are reports, they are data, with each having some value in greater numbers.
There is no better group of people than on this list, so used to high voltage and the unique environment the TC operates in, to help understand any set of conditions that leads to an unknown discharge. Who else on the Web, in such large numbers, is at home with high E-fields, indeed, had modeling software, some with HV water probes /dividers, to "see" the fields as this community. That is one reason the B/L question keeps showing up and of course that Tesla spoke of it, in less than needed detail.
In the very early sailing days, when people were convinced the Earth was flat, any person or sailor climbing to the top of a tall ship's mast, which most had to do,could clearly see the curvature of Earth, could see that ships sailing prior stayed in sight and the last thing seen was the top of it's mast. Yet, they saw these same ships return safely and knew they did not fall off the planet. Still, as the "powers that be" said it was flat, that is how it stayed for so long. People standing on a square, this time of fear to change or understand.
Everybody has opinion, that is fine, I agree you have the right to think as you will.
But for those that are "arm chair" defenders of what you call or accept as science or call B/L researchers as pseudoscience, have you put in the work in this field either to prove or study or disprove what we call Ball Lightning or it's related varied displays?
Just here alone. Heating 7,000 square feet at today's oil prices and last years oil costs plus electric costs, are you self funding a lab to study this? If you are not studying it, if you are not putting in your time, how dare you devalue the costs and time in man years we that are giving it study, to stand on your square and call what we study as "pseudoscience".
All of us in technology of today think we are really smart but compared to the not too distant future, we are laughable, we know next to nothing, just as we view early Humans as no more than a bit clever. What we know we have had for a very short time. There are a few people still alive who were born before we even had wireless voice communication.
For all the many people researching B/L that have also put in the time, they too would not appreciate the term "fringe" or "pseudoscience". At least they are working at the problem, yet here we have "pure science" critics, that are NOT working on the problem yet say our studies are not science.
As Dave said, science means to study. So out of respect for those not just sitting with their book collection but rather working, putting in the effort, the study is science. Along the way, evidence is gained and you are satisfied.
Bob's assumption that the hot metal balls in earlier work, were, as he admits now, were not B/L and the bar has been raised as to what he will consider as the real thing. Everybody learns.
I noted also, when other logical points were put forward, the old "guilt by association" tools were brought out such as lumping Ball Lightening research with UFO's, etc. This is just an old trick to draw attention away from the main point. If some can not defend labeling this research as fake, then trying to pull it into very questionable categories is such a trick.
The quality of B/L reports, from very technical people says something is happening and does not deserve to be placed in that UFO grouping. If some had taken the time to look at the plasma ball formation in the movie I posted, Not B/L but the formation of 3 large roundish plasmas, from beach ball then evolving to near basket ball sized which remained a long time, it would be clear there is at least one model to study. It is an AVI movie and can be studied one frame at a time.
Hot streamer holds it in area /mike2004/ to watch an arc become these 3 rounded objects, with sound track.
So my main point is, if one is not doing the work but sits at the computer and plays critic then that is being unfair.
It's a bit like Dave's two books, he worked out the numbers (which seem to work well per some MIT people still looking at this), he went through all this effort of writing books yet critics, without doing the math or reading the books completely, he is branded a heretic.
From a science point of view, the only mistake I see is that, on another site not directly related to the technology of his book, he mixed religion and technology but that was in some opinion, yet quoted out of context in trying to take him down from the "scientists". Those two subjects will never properly mix.
But he did put in the work and for that deserves respect.
Know this, the B/L research is going to go on and someday the answers will be found; Those of the same mind set as the old flat world map makers may as well get used to the idea and get out your work clothes because you will end up duplicating the experiments as you see the need to confirm what is inevitable.
Mike



----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: RE: Teslas Ball Lightning


Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Brett,

> No one is sneering here, it is okay if I (and other rational
> minds) believe ball lightning may be just a rumor.  That is
> healthy to the learning process, you will find it throughout
> the history of science.  I can criticise an idea, without
> criticising an individual.

An idea is an hypothesis or a theory.  A first hand account is
neither, it is data.  It is merely a report.  And since the data
in this case are based upon the visual and auditory sensations of
individuals, any comment like "Saying you sa[w] a beachball or
basketball sized luminous orb float around, pass through a door
or wall and then later dissolve with a 'bang' is a pretty
outrageous claim," is sneering at the person who gave the report.
We should not treat the report as though it didn't happen.  We
should treat it as though it *did* happen and reserve judgment of
what actually occurred until we have the science to quantify and
explain the reports.  If people don't give their reports, how
will we know about such phenomena?

>  > It's called a hypothesis.
>
> A hypothesis is what Terry came up with.

I agree.

> You are talking about a vague notion based on heresay.

Absolutely wrong.  We are talking about first hand accounts of
members of this list, given by the people who actually witnessed
the event.  There is no vague notion based on hearsay at all.
These first hand accounts are valid data.  They are not
outrageous claims.

> It could turn out to be a real phenominon, however,
> it is perfectly fine for me to lament a lack of evidence.

There is no lack of evidence.  These are first hand, witnessed
accounts.  A report by a witness counts as evidence.  The more
witnesses there are, the greater value the first hand accounts
have.

> If you noticed, I supported Terry's optimism and ideas for
> ball lightning lab research.

I did notice.  I also noticed other things in your comments.  I'm
hoping to spare others the embarrassment of sharing their first
hand accounts only to have them blown off by other people's
unscientific and personal opinions.  This list is about Tesla
coil related science, not sneering at someone because they share
a report of something they actually saw.

>  > Since there
>  > are numerous visual witnesses of ball lightning, we  can
>  > properly  hypothesize that the phenomenon does exist.
>
> That's not true at all...especially since the statements
> "ball lightning" and "phenomenon" mean nothing taken alone.
> As someone else on the list (was it Matt?) pointed out, you
> have quantified nothing.

The objects were reported to be spherical (a geometrical
observation that quantifies the surface structure), bright (a
relative quantification of the luminosity), and they moved slowly
through the air and other objects (a relative quantification of
their velocities).  True, these quantifications need to become
more precise, but they are quantities of the phenomenon,
nonetheless.

> People saw some stuff.  What was it?  The accounts differ
> greatly.  What you have is an "urban legend", not a hypothesis.

No, you have data, not urban legends.  Urban legends are based
upon hearsay, which these accounts are not.

> I am not sure what you mean by "discount", but if personal
> observations serve as the inspiration (which we all need) to
> perform serious scientific work (such as what Terry proposed,
> attempts by the Corums, and what Bill Beaty mentioned with
> the microwave) then they  have served a useful purpose.
> However, anecdotal evidence is not worth much alone.

First hand accounts of ball lightning are worth a lot.  The
moderator clearly stated this.  Unless I have missed something,
it is the moderator who determines what evidence has worth on
this list.  And how is it you feel qualified to reduce the
evidence from "first hand account" to "anecdotal?"

> Well, we can hardly study something that we can't harness or
> reliably observe, however, we are free to continue
> speculating as to its method of production and whether or not
> it can be harnessed in the lab, which is the hot subject
nowadays.

Ah, but you seem to have missed the fact that the first hand
reports had led Terry to propose a means for replicating and
testing the phenomenon.  Terry's suggestions, of course, have
been replicated by Jean Naudin and others with microwave ovens.
Kiril Chukanov has actually built machines that generate large
specimens of ball lightning type effects using microwaves.  Kiril
has been working independently on ball lightning for several
years that I am aware of.
http://www.chukanovenergy.com/index.php?action=view_gallery&id=11
&module=imagegallerymodule

I must qualify that I have read Kiril's theories concerning ball
lightning (and physics in general) and disagree with some of his
theories.  But that does not detract from the fact he has built
machines that actually produce ball lightning type effects, or
made some valid observations concerning the phenomena.

> I'm sorry but it does not work that way, why do you think
> 99.9 percent of ghost encounter reports, alien abductions,
> and fairy sightings go uninvestigated by credentualized
> scientists.  There are very few people who have the time and
> money to run around the globe "disproving" outrageous claims.
> I am not sure why you have the burden of proof system reversed.

Are you placing the guys on this list in the same group as ghost
encounter reports, alien abductions, and fairy sightings?  Are
you, again, saying that the engineers who reported first hand
accounts of ball lightning are making outrageous claims? Correct
me if I'm wrong, but the first hand reports of ball lightning I
read on this list were by qualified engineers who understand the
principles of high potential, high frequency currents.  The
reports I read were qualified in that the reporters questioned
their own physiological experiences, reported contradictions by
other witnesses, and also did not make any claim that we should
accept ball lightning as real.

Having read numerous other first hand accounts of ball lightning,
and having discussed ball lightning with researchers attempting
to replicate it in a controlled setting, I honestly feel that
these accounts are genuine and valuable to our research.
Hopefully, with more first hand accounts of this caliber, we will
eventually solve the mystery of what ball lightning actually is
and understand the physics behind it.

The only burden of proof issue here is whether the reports are
given by honest people.  Since no claims are being made aside
from the fact that they saw what they saw, and I have no reason
to question the integrity of this list's members, they owe no
proof.  It is you who have incorrectly assigned a need for burden
of proof to first hand accounts.  As I mentioned before, a
witness *IS* proof.  Unless you are questioning the integrity of
the witness, there is nothing to prove in a first hand account.

To clarify this further, to say you saw a ghost is data.  To say
that ghosts exist is a theory.  The theory requires data.  The
better the quality of the data, the stronger the theory becomes.
I don't disagree that the data presented is weak data, but it is
data nonetheless.

Dave